DNA analogous to code?

[navig8tr]

Hello all,

 

Recently, I came across this argument for the existence of god:

 

1) DNA is a code

2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a mind

3) So, DNA was created by a mind

 

Basically, it's saying that since all the codes we have observed (language, programming languages, morse code etc) have all been created by a mind it is reasonable to assume that DNA was also created by a mind. The writer of the argument goes on to say that there are no instances of naturally occurring codes so the syllogism is inductively valid. However, even if we accept the assertion that there are no naturally occurring codes, I believe that the argument is using a false analogy between DNA and code.

 

So, I ask the experts: Is DNA a code in the same way that a language or programming language, or even morse code is? Or is the word 'code' just a shorthand way of describing DNA?

 

Thanks for any responses.

[ecoli]

The analogy of DNA and code is actually a good one. Where this argument fails is that it argues from ignorance and a false premise. We know DNA wasn't created by a 'mind' therefore the premise of 2 is incorrect.

 

The premise "all swans are white" is only as good as your non-observation of a black swan (which do exist).

[navig8tr]

Well, I agree, but how do I convince a creationist that dna wasn't created by a mind. Also, the writer of the syllogism says this is not an argument from ignorance, but rather inductive reasoning--all codes we see were created by a mind, therefore, dna was created by a mind. What makes this an argument from ignorance rather than inductive reasoning?

[ecoli]

Well, I agree, but how do I convince a creationist that dna wasn't created by a mind.

Ah yes I understand the difficulty of your situation.

 

Also, the writer of the syllogism says this is not an argument from ignorance, but rather inductive reasoning--all codes we see were created by a mind, therefore, dna was created by a mind.

 

It is a form of inductive reasoning, but that doesn't mean the conclusion is true (the very definition of an inference allows for this possibility). For example, the reason we know codes are man-made is because of the documentation showing who specifically or which culture developed a particular code. So, the premise that all codes are man-made is not true, unless we willingly blind ourselves to the possibility of codes that are not man made.

 

What makes this an argument from ignorance rather than inductive reasoning?

 

because it makes the argument that the premise is true because it has not been proven false (by willfully being ignorant about good evidence that DNA codes are not designed). In fact you shouldn't be convincing the creationst that DNA wasn't created by a mind, but you should ask for evidence that it WAS. The burden of proof is on the one making the argument, not the listener.

[chilehed]

Hello all,

 

Recently, I came across this argument for the existence of god:

 

1) DNA is a code

2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a mind

3) So, DNA was created by a mind

 

Basically, it's saying that since all the codes we have observed (language, programming languages, morse code etc) have all been created by a mind it is reasonable to assume that DNA was also created by a mind. The writer of the argument goes on to say that there are no instances of naturally occurring codes so the syllogism is inductively valid. However, even if we accept the assertion that there are no naturally occurring codes, I believe that the argument is using a false analogy between DNA and code.

 

So, I ask the experts: Is DNA a code in the same way that a language or programming language, or even morse code is? Or is the word 'code' just a shorthand way of describing DNA?

 

Thanks for any responses.

No, it's not a good argument, but not for the reason ecoli gave. The reason it's not a good argument is that premise #1 is false: DNA is not a code.

 

A code is a symbol or group of symbols that signifies an abstract idea or thought. Written language is visual code for spoken, and spoken language is aural code for ideas such as "I love you" or "please pass the salt". But the DNA molecule doesn't mean anything, any more than does the H2SO4 molecule, the CN− anion, or a boulder perched on top of a cliff. None of those things have any abstract meaning; they are physical objects that have a certain structure and energy potential and that behave in certain ways given particular environmental conditions.

 

This is related to the confusion between information and meaning. Contrary to popular opinion, information is inversely proportional to meaning.

 

ecoli's answer is flawed on at least two counts. First, it commits an error of definition in that it equates being created with having meaning. Not all created things have meaning. For example, the small black dots on a printed page do not have meaning, but their arrangement into letters and words does: both are created, but only the latter has meaning. Second, it begs the question in that it says that not all code are created by a mind because we know that DNA wasn't created by a mind, but "was DNA created by a mind?" was the proposition to be proven.

 

But none of this should be taken to indicate that I don't believe in God. It's just that that argument is not a good one.

Edited August 28, 2012 by chilehed

[ecoli]

No, it's not a good argument, but not for the reason ecoli gave. The reason it's not a good argument is that premise #1 is false: DNA is not a code.

 

A code is a symbol or group of symbols that signifies an abstract idea or thought. Written language is visual code for spoken, and spoken language is aural code for ideas such as "I love you" or "please pass the salt". But the DNA molecule doesn't mean anything, any more than does the H2SO4 molecule, the CN− anion, or a boulder perched on top of a cliff. None of those things have any abstract meaning; they are physical objects that have a certain structure and energy potential and that behave in certain ways given particular environmental conditions.

 

Then I have to disagree with your definition of "code" here. I agree that "I love you" is meaningless out of context. But, if DNA is just a molecule, then words are just vibrating air molecules.

 

ecoli's answer is flawed on at least two counts. First, it commits an error of definition in that it equates being created with having meaning. Not all created things have meaning.

I'm pretty sure I didn't make that claim.

 

Second, it begs the question in that it says that not all code are created by a mind because we know that DNA wasn't created by a mind, but "was DNA created by a mind?" was the proposition to be proven.

Which is, in fact, one of the reasons I stated above, albeit in other words.

[chilehed]

Then I have to disagree with your definition of "code" here.

My understanding is that that is the definition of coding, at least in part. If you know of another, I'd be interested in hearing what it is.

 

I agree that "I love you" is meaningless out of context. But, if DNA is just a molecule, then words are just vibrating air molecules.

So then white noise is words?

 

I'm pretty sure I didn't make that claim.

I think it's implicit on what you said, but right now it's too late and I'm too tired to express myself clearly. Maybe I can do a better job tomorrow, or else realize that I was wrong.

 

Which is, in fact, one of the reasons I stated above, albeit in other words.

I'm not sure I see that, but again I'm a bit tired.

 

Have a blessed evening.

Edited August 28, 2012 by chilehed

[John Cuthber]

Whether DNA is a code or not, the second line of the so-called proof i.e.

"All codes we know the origin of are created by a mind"

is begging the question.

 

In my experience a lot of creationists wouldn't recognise a logical fallacy if it bit their hindquarters so...

 

If, for the sake of debate, and for a given definition, we take it that DNA is a code then it's a code we know about.

If it wasn't created by a mind then the second statement is false.

So, in order for the argument to work, we have to assume (not only that DNA is a code) but more importantly, that it was created by a mind.

If you assume that then it's axiomatically true, but it doesn't tell you anything.

 

Imagine that I could actually prove that DNA wasn't created by a mind.

The second statement would be clearly false.

If, on the other hand, I could prove that it was created by a mind then the statement would be true.

However in the absence of any such proof either way, it is impossible to know if the statement is true or not. Whatever view you take on it, further evidence may show you to be wrong.

So you cannot rely on it.

Edited August 28, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Moontanman]

The code is created by a mind... ours, DNA is only a code because we call it a code, it is really chemicals that direct the actions of other chemicals, if you wanted you could call the way various shapes of shells are sorted out by ocean waves a code that represents the waves themselves but I wouldn't say the waves were created by a mind but the idea it could code for the shapes of the waves is created by a mind... ours...

[ecoli]

My understanding is that that is the definition of coding, at least in part. If you know of another, I'd be interested in hearing what it is.

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/code#English

definitions 1, 4,5 and maybe even 6 apply to DNA:

 

1. A short symbol, often with little relation to the item it represents.

4. A set of rules for converting information into another form or representation.

5. (cryptography) A cryptographic system using a codebook that converts words or phrases into codewords.

6. (programming, uncountable) A programming language (or other computer language), a program, a routine written in it, or, more generally, the input of a translator, an interpretator or a browser, namely: source code, machine code, bytecode.

 

Nucleic acid bases can certainly be construed as symbols that, when read in a specific sequence, represent amino acids. DNA sequences definitely has rules for converting information into another form (DNA -> RNA -> AAs), although these rules aren't set as explicitly as man-made codes the molecular result is largely the same. 5 and 6 are applications of the other definitions that loosely apply here.

 

So then white noise is words?

This doesn't follow logically from what I said: "words are vibrations in air", but this does not imply that all vibrating air molecules can be construed as words. Only a small subset of vibration frequencies can be interpreted by the ear and brain as speech and this is limited by physics and cultural context.

 

I think it's implicit on what you said, but right now it's too late and I'm too tired to express myself clearly. Maybe I can do a better job tomorrow, or else realize that I was wrong.

 

Well I agree that not all created things have meaning. White noise can be generated but may not contain meaning as speech would. I just don't see how you took that as my meaning.

 

I'm not sure I see that, but again I'm a bit tired.

I agreed that the proposition that has yet to be proven AKA the burden of proof to demonstrate the premise is on the one stating the premise.

 

Get some rest ;-)

[ydoaPs]

Well, I agree, but how do I convince a creationist that dna wasn't created by a mind.

 

 

Convince them it's not a code. DNA is no more a code than the mass of a star is code for how the planets orbit it.

[ecoli]

Convince them it's not a code. DNA is no more a code than the mass of a star is code for how the planets orbit it.

 

This could result in an unnecessary semantics argument. See above.

[navig8tr]

This could result in an unnecessary semantics argument. See above.

 

This is exactly what it leads to. To me, the difference between the two is obvious--one in fact does occur naturally while the other does not. To simply assert that goddidit regarding dna is a non-answer, and it explains nothing Thus, we should never stop looking for naturalistic explanations. However, I can't deny the accuracy of the analogy and the inductive value of the argument. Given this, should we believe that dna was created by a mind until a better, naturalistic explanation is found? Or have we already discovered the better explanation--evolution. Is it reasonable to assume that DNA evolved over time given our current evidence for evolution, or would this be as unjustified as the god explanation?

 

If the syllogism is sound, then it boils down to two choices. Which argument is stronger--the inductive value of the 'codes from mind' argument or the scientific evidence that DNA came about through evolution? As a naturalist I reject all supernatural explanations, but in this case am I justified in doing so?

 

So many questions...this would be so much easier with a logical disproof of the argument!

Edited August 30, 2012 by navig8tr

[akh]

This is exactly what it leads to. To me, the difference between the two is obvious--one in fact does occur naturally while the other does not. To simply assert that goddidit regarding dna is a non-answer, and it explains nothing Thus, we should never stop looking for naturalistic explanations. However, I can't deny the accuracy of the analogy and the inductive value of the argument. Given this, should we believe that dna was created by a mind until a better, naturalistic explanation is found? Or have we already discovered the better explanation--evolution. Is it reasonable to assume that DNA evolved over time given our current evidence for evolution, or would this be as unjustified as the god explanation?

 

If the syllogism is sound, then it boils down to two choices. Which argument is stronger--the inductive value of the 'codes from mind' argument or the scientific evidence that DNA came about through evolution? As a naturalist I reject all supernatural explanations, but in this case am I justified in doing so?

 

So many questions...this would be so much easier with a logical disproof of the argument!

 

How about the level of "junk" that is in our DNA? No code created by a mind, would have the percentage of noncoding sequences found in our DNA, or any other animal for that matter. It would not make sense for it to be there. This is where the inductive argument loses all value. You may also want to point out, that any truly inductive process leaves room for a false conclusion.

 

Not that all noncoding sequences lack function, many serve as regulatory mechanisms for example. But there still appears to be large sections of our DNA that have zero function. They don't regulate, and they do not encode for proteins. Ask them to explain that.

 

There may be some leverage with distinctions between terms like code and encode within biological terminology, but semantics are not usually the best level of argument.

Edited August 30, 2012 by akh

[Moontanman]

This is exactly what it leads to. To me, the difference between the two is obvious--one in fact does occur naturally while the other does not. To simply assert that goddidit regarding dna is a non-answer, and it explains nothing Thus, we should never stop looking for naturalistic explanations. However, I can't deny the accuracy of the analogy and the inductive value of the argument. Given this, should we believe that dna was created by a mind until a better, naturalistic explanation is found? Or have we already discovered the better explanation--evolution. Is it reasonable to assume that DNA evolved over time given our current evidence for evolution, or would this be as unjustified as the god explanation?

 

If the syllogism is sound, then it boils down to two choices. Which argument is stronger--the inductive value of the 'codes from mind' argument or the scientific evidence that DNA came about through evolution? As a naturalist I reject all supernatural explanations, but in this case am I justified in doing so?

 

So many questions...this would be so much easier with a logical disproof of the argument!

 

 

I believe I did give a logical disproof of the code argument in post #9. i live at the coast, I beach comb quite a bit and the waves do indeed sort out shells and bits of rock and other objects by size and shape. These sorted objects appear in distinct patterns as you walk along these patterns become evident.

 

A case in point, at some point many years ago a huge wall was made at the ocean by dumping marl boulders on the only natural out cropping of rock on the NC coast. This created an environment where small objects were ground up by wave action and distributed along the beach. At some point a few truck loads of bricks was dumped at that same place and the ocean proceeded to grind up these bricks and distribute them along the beach as to shape and size. The distribution of these brick pieces can be charted, larger pieces appear first from the larger marl boulder wall and with smaller pieces being distributed further and further away but it is much more complex than just size distribution.

 

They are sorted by shape as well, as you walk along various shapes of brick fragments are distributed in groups as well as by size. This occurs with fragments of everything from shells to sand grains but the bricks were especially interesting due to the shape distribution, there were areas of brick fragments shaped like spindles, spheres, various odd shapes but each shape was found with other similarly sized and shaped fragments. At on point along the beach the fragments started to tend toward a valentines day shaped heart and there in on small section was dozens of perfectly heart shaped fragments all in the same small place and then the shapes began to trend toward another random shape and so on down the beach.

 

Now the heart shaped fragments were the result of wave action of several different types and to us seemed to be designed but in reality it was just a record of the wave action acting of brick fragments. The mind that decided the shapes were heart shaped was human, the evident sorting by shape and size was real but the idea that it had some reason was human.

 

The patterns of fragments was regular and could be said to be a representation of the wave action, in other words a code but the idea of a code is a human idea we use to describes certain representations of things. The concept of a code is not independent of humans, no one but a human walking down that beach would have identified that small area of brick fragments as heart shaped, to say they were shaped by a higher power because we identified the shape as significant is simply not logical. To say the wave sorting of objects is a code because it represents the actions of waves is a human concept, it has no independent reality...

[navig8tr]

What if we were to change the syllogism slightly:

 

DNA is a code

All codes that we know the origin of were designed

So, DNA was designed

 

This is a logical proof that DNA was designed. Could it then be possible that evolution was the designer? Albeit a mindless designer. After all, it mindlessly created all the diversity of life from a single cell. Is it such a leap to say that it also created DNA?

[akh]

What if we were to change the syllogism slightly:

 

DNA is a code

All codes that we know the origin of were designed

So, DNA was designed

 

This is a logical proof that DNA was designed. Could it then be possible that evolution was the designer? Albeit a mindless designer. After all, it mindlessly created all the diversity of life from a single cell. Is it such a leap to say that it also created DNA?

 

 

Designer implies intent. Designer implies higher authority. So, no, I don't think so. I also think that "mindless designer" is a bit of an oxymoron. Also, there are ideas that life arose many times before it got it "right". So it wouldn't just be "the" or "a" designer.

Edited August 30, 2012 by akh

[navig8tr]

Designer implies intent. Designer implies higher authority. So, no, I don't think so. I also think that "mindless designer" is a bit of an oxymoron. Also, there are ideas that life arose many times before it got it "right". So it wouldn't just be "the" or "a" designer.

 

Good point.

[John Cuthber]

DNA isn't a code- it's a message. Like scrambled letter left on a bit of paper for his colleagues to read.

Pointing that out to the God squad won't help.

The code is the relation of 3 bases to one amino acid.

But it doesn't matter. It's still begging the question so it's not a logical argument.

[imatfaal]

What if we were to change the syllogism slightly:

 

DNA is a code

All codes that we know the origin of were designed

So, DNA was designed

 

This is a logical proof that DNA was designed. Could it then be possible that evolution was the designer? Albeit a mindless designer. After all, it mindlessly created all the diversity of life from a single cell. Is it such a leap to say that it also created DNA?

 

Even if the first two propositions were correct (and there will be debate on that) no valid conclusion can be reached - your Middles do not match

 

All M are P

S is M

S is P

 

But your Ms are different - M1 is "codes we know the origin of" M2 is "code" (flipping the order to put the universal proposition first). Think back to the swan example.

[ydoaPs]

This could result in an unnecessary semantics argument. See above.

 

Not really. DNA doesn't actually meet any of the definitions you proposed either. Chemicals don't "stand for" anything, and the set of rules are entirely manmade; they're simply descriptions of how chemicals interact.

 

We can say "under certain circumstances, this sequence of chemicals will react chemically in such a way that this amino acid is produced", but that in no way means the chemicals "code" for the amino acids any more than saying "under certain circumstances, this mass distribution will react gravitationally in such a way that a certain orbit is produced" means mass distributions "code" for orbits.

[ecoli]

yourDad - substitute 'chemicals' for 'logic circuit' and the same argument could be made for a computer.

 

After all, there's a whole field of biological computing that works on the principle that DNA encodes information and executes in code-like behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing

[navig8tr]

Even if the first two propositions were correct (and there will be debate on that) no valid conclusion can be reached - your Middles do not match

 

All M are P

S is M

S is P

 

But your Ms are different - M1 is "codes we know the origin of" M2 is "code" (flipping the order to put the universal proposition first). Think back to the swan example.

 

Yes, but doesn't the argument still work in an inductive sense? Like the swan example, wasn't it reasonable to believe that all swans in the world were white when white swans were the only swans ever observed. The time to believe in black swans was when the existence of black swans had been proven.

[Ringer]

Yes, but doesn't the argument still work in an inductive sense? Like the swan example, wasn't it reasonable to believe that all swans in the world were white when white swans were the only swans ever observed. The time to believe in black swans was when the existence of black swans had been proven.

 

Think if we didn't know anything about any other planets your logic could be used as follows:

 

There are other planets

All planets we know of have people on them

other planets have people on them

[Mellinia]

Hello all,

 

Recently, I came across this argument for the existence of god:

 

1) DNA is a code

2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a mind

3) So, DNA was created by a mind

 

Basically, it's saying that since all the codes we have observed (language, programming languages, morse code etc) have all been created by a mind it is reasonable to assume that DNA was also created by a mind. The writer of the argument goes on to say that there are no instances of naturally occurring codes so the syllogism is inductively valid. However, even if we accept the assertion that there are no naturally occurring codes, I believe that the argument is using a false analogy between DNA and code.

 

So, I ask the experts: Is DNA a code in the same way that a language or programming language, or even morse code is? Or is the word 'code' just a shorthand way of describing DNA?

 

Thanks for any responses.

if I wrote a code that could generate new code, would that make computer 'god'?